Not a Fermion, Not a Boson. Scientists Find New Evidence of Two-Dimensional 'Anyons' (sciencenews.org) 51
Slashdot reader Nostalgia4Infinity shared this report from Science News:
In the three-dimensional world we live in, there are two classes of elementary particles: bosons and fermions. But in two dimensions, theoretical physicists predict, there's another option: anyons. Now, scientists report new evidence that anyons exist and that they behave unlike any known particle. Using a tiny "collider," researchers flung presumed anyons at one another to help confirm their identities, physicists report in the April 10 Science...
Braiding some types of anyons may be a useful technique for building better quantum computers. Current versions of those computers are highly susceptible to mistakes slipping into calculations. Like a neat plait that keeps unruly hair in line, braided anyons could store information in a manner that is resistant to such errors.
Although the new study hasn't demonstrated braiding, it gets scientists a step closer to understanding anyons. "It's a beautiful experiment. It is definitely going beyond what was done in the past," Nayak says.
Braiding some types of anyons may be a useful technique for building better quantum computers. Current versions of those computers are highly susceptible to mistakes slipping into calculations. Like a neat plait that keeps unruly hair in line, braided anyons could store information in a manner that is resistant to such errors.
Although the new study hasn't demonstrated braiding, it gets scientists a step closer to understanding anyons. "It's a beautiful experiment. It is definitely going beyond what was done in the past," Nayak says.
So, in more comedic terms, ... (Score:5, Funny)
We find that in two dimensions we don't just have matter and anti-matter, we also have a particle for which it doesn't matter.
Re: So, in more comedic terms, ... (Score:2)
Hey buddy, I donâ(TM)t know what physics is like in your house, but in mine, matter matters!
Re: (Score:2)
What, no #mattermatters yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since I didn't see it, you also have other particles called "Funyons" [fritolay.com]...
Re: (Score:1)
Those particles are not allowed to switch restrooms in red states of matter.
April one on steroids (Score:3)
Re: April one on steroids (Score:2)
Re: April one on steroids (Score:5, Interesting)
The title of the original article uses the terminology precisely -- Collisions reveal new evidence of ‘anyon’ quasiparticles' existence. These are not "buzzwords" they are precisely defined unambiguous technical terms.
The terms "fermion" and "boson" described the quantum mechanical properties of entities, including fundamental particles and quasiparticles. Anything that obeys Bose-Einstein statistics is a boson, anything obeying Fermi statistics is a fermion. Anyons do not obey either and thus form a new quantum class. This is a real and new quantum mechanical phenomenon.
As the article suggests, they prove useful in making quantum computers.
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow I think that they're using the word "braid" in a non-standard way. A regular braid goes over/under, which is not possible in 2 dimensions. Do you have any insight on what the heck they might mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially multiple entanglement.
Re: (Score:2)
Pseudo-particles can entangle? That's cool!
Re: (Score:2)
If you prefer, the states of the many particles that form a quasi-particle can mutually entangle with the states of another group of particles that form another quasi-particle.
The two groups of particles need not be mutually exclusive.
Re: April one on steroids (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This entire year has been a joke so far.
Quasiparticles != real partices! (Score:1)
Like phonons, they are a nice concept,
but of you call them "real", you are going down the road of pseudo-science, and might aswell call yourselves a cult.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your arguments are all about formalisms which have nothing to do with the actual science. They are akin to "if it is not printed in 11 pt Times New Roman, it can't be true."
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "real". Are you going to say protons aren't real because they're made up of quarks?
Phonons are not primary, but they are real. That they are composite entities with varying components doesn't mean they aren't real anymore than the same of yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like those things network engineers might call certain phenomena "packets" (that have well defined mathematical properties we can choose to ignore for the sake of derision) when if they were manly and honest they would call it "data".
Just like those pretentious software engineers who talk about meaningless abstractions like "classes", "instances", "interfaces", "objects", etc. when it nothing more than code and data structures by another name.
Just like those silly surfers talk about "waves" as if they
Re: (Score:3)
Say what? Oh, you mean timed electrical pulses.... sorry, manipulated electrical potentials... er, disturbances in the electron and photon fields.
Also: Bosons do NOT "clump up". (Score:3, Informative)
They don't follow the Pauli exclusion principle. Meaning they don't collide, but merely interfere, like waves in water or sound.
To say bosons "clump up" is like saying you were in the ocean, and the waves started clumping up. Or you were at a pub, where everyone sang an Irish drinking song, and the sounds started clumping up.
Is the writer at ScienceNews retarded or does he think we are?
Re:Also: Bosons do NOT "clump up". (Score:5, Informative)
They don't follow the Pauli exclusion principle. Meaning they don't collide, but merely interfere, like waves in water or sound. To say bosons "clump up" is like saying you were in the ocean, and the waves started clumping up.
No, it is nothing like that all. Bose-Einstein statistic also mean that in a system of bosons, they are most likely to be found in a single quantum state, which can reasonably called a "clump". In fact a very active area of physics has been studying Bose-Einstein condensates [wikipedia.org] which are exactly these clumps.
Re: Also: Bosons do NOT "clump up". (Score:1)
No, calling that a "clump" is still wrong.
BECs are actively constrained, with cooling and lasers and energy wells, exactly because they would not "clump" otherwise.
BECs are not made of bosons anyway. They are made of fermions, that just behave like one big boson because a special environment forces a narrow case where they can act like that.
Saying they "clump" is harmfully misleading.
(And actually, to mention another such harmfully misleading view, is to call elementary "particles" particles or waves (like
Re: (Score:3)
BECs are actively constrained, with cooling and lasers and energy wells, exactly because they would not "clump" otherwise.
Not true. They need to be actively cooled because otherwise the environment around them would heat them up beyond the point they would form BECs. They do not need to be forced into a BEC beyond that, and will naturally do so on their own.
BECs are not made of bosons anyway. They are made of fermions, that just behave like one big boson because a special environment forces a narrow case where they can act like that.
Absolutely, totally, 100% wrong. You may be thinking of Cooper pairs [wikipedia.org], but those are a very different thing from BECs.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the writer at ScienceNews retarded or does he think we are?
Bueller? Bueller? Anyon? Anyon?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the writer at ScienceNews retarded or does he think we are?
It's not just ScienceNews that thinks you're retarded. I think most of Slashdot does too.
Homer^2 (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, it's only one letter away (Score:1)
Re:theoretical physicists is the keyword here (Score:4, Insightful)
in other words they dont do real science in the real world, they make up a few hypotheses and throw them against the wall to see what sticks,
This is a pretty empty criticism, and is identical to the mediaeval Church's complaint against heliocentrism (in the real world, the sun goes around the earth).
What makes science science is falsifiability - i.e. hypotheses that can be proven wrong regardless of how we define, or presume, the real world to be.
Re: (Score:3)
I see the Enlightenment has passed you by. How do you think science progresses were it not for new hypotheses? You seem to think experiments happen in a theory vacuum. They do not. They are always evaluated against hypotheses.
Re: (Score:2)
they make up a few hypotheses
Theoretical
and throw them against the wall
Experimental
It's all parts of real science.
Hello! (Score:1)
Question on the Linked Article (Score:3)
Her piece then goes on to describe the experimental search for evidence of the "anyons", which is described as a difficult experiment that produced convincing results.
My question concerns superconductivity. Specifically, if fermions (like electrons) are "loners", would this state describe normal conductivity properties such that superconductivity might either be a mechanism that results in electrons adopting anyon or boson-like properties, or where, perhaps, the electrons (fermions) producing conductivity might enter in to a state where they interact in new ways with other particles that result in the emergence of the property of superconductivity?
Could these be related?
Thanks in advance...
Re: (Score:3)
Classical superconductivity occurs because pairs of electrons pair up and together create composite particles called Cooper pairs, which are bosons.
Blue? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because it was auto posted trash.
Anyons? Hello. (Score:1)
You've got to strip them down to next to nothing before you can even tell.
It translates as "Hello" (Score:1)
"Anyon [Hello]"
"Yes, your name is Anyon. He's a little slow."
Splitting Anyons (Score:2)